Linda McCarty v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company

<h2><br>
Macon, Missouri insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a breach of contract theory.<br>
</h2><br>
<br>
On July 16, 2021, McCarty's son was killed in a motor vehicle accident. McCarty pursued a liability claim against the at-fault driver ("tortfeasor") and settled for the tortfeasor's liability insurance policy limits of $35,000.<br>
<br>
At the time of his death, McCarty's son qualified as an insured under an automobile insurance policy that McCarty purchased from Shelter ("the Policy"). The declarations page ("Declarations") pertaining to the Policy lists UIM Limits of "$50,000 Per Person" and "$100,000 Per Accident." McCarty asserted a UIM claim under the Policy, demanding a payment from Shelter Insurance for the full $50,000 UIM policy limit. In response, Shelter tendered $15,000, explaining that this was the total amount of UIM coverage available to McCarty under the terms of the Policy because McCarty had already received $35,000 from the settlement.<br>
<br>
On February 11, 2022, McCarty filed a petition against Shelter in the circuit court, alleging Shelter breached the Policy by refusing to pay her $50,000 of UIM coverage benefits to satisfy her claim.[1] The parties proceeded to file cross-motions for summary judgment, seeking a determination from the circuit court on whether McCarty was owed $50,000 or $15,000 under the Policy's terms.<br>
<br>
Citing various provisions in the Policy, Shelter argued that it was entitled to reduce, or set off, the tortfeasor's liability payment of $35,000 from the $50,000 UIM limit. McCarty argued that she was entitled to $50,000 because the Policy is ambiguous in that neither the Declarations nor the Underinsured Motorist Endorsement ("UIM Endorsement") describe a set-off provision pertaining to the UIM coverage limits under the Policy. She further argued that because of the ambiguities present in the Policy, the Policy should be construed as providing "excess" coverage rather than "gap" coverage.[2]<br>
<br>
The circuit court granted McCarty's motion for summary judgment and denied Shelter's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Policy is ambiguous and that Shelter was not entitled to set off the tortfeasor's payment from the UIM Policy limit. Accordingly, the circuit court entered judgment against Shelter in the amount of $50,000. This appeal follows. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

Reversed and remanded